bgw join:2008-06-28 North York, ON |
bgw
Member
2013-May-31 9:53 am
This will never happen in CanadaNew low rates for internet in the UK: » www.telegraph.co.uk/fina ··· fer.html |
|
Fraoch join:2003-08-01 Cambridge, ON SmartRG SR808ac TP-Link EAP225 Grandstream HT502
|
Fraoch
Member
2013-May-31 10:06 am
Not to defend the incumbents in Canada, but the population density in the UK is much, much higher than even metropolitan areas in Canada. The distances between high population density centres is also much lower. Heck the entire UK land area is about 1/4 the size of Ontario, and just about all of it is inhabitable. You don't have to lay much fibre in the UK to reach a lot of customers. That said, yes, Internet pricing should be facing downward pricing pressure, not upward as Rogers would have you believe. Our tightly-regulated industry in Canada and anti-competitive government body sympathetic to incumbents doesn't help either. |
|
vincom join:2009-03-06 Bolton, ON |
vincom
Member
2013-May-31 10:33 am
said by Fraoch:Not to defend the incumbents in Canada, but the population density in the UK is much, much higher than even metropolitan areas in Canada. The distances between high population density centres is also much lower. Heck the entire UK land area is about 1/4 the size of Ontario, and just about all of it is inhabitable. You don't have to lay much fibre in the UK to reach a lot of customers. That said, yes, Internet pricing should be facing downward pricing pressure, not upward as Rogers would have you believe. Our tightly-regulated industry in Canada and anti-competitive government body sympathetic to incumbents doesn't help either. doesn't explain our overpriced pots, the lower internet speed tier pricing and bandwidth gouging |
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
to Fraoch
The difference in population density is not likely to be as dramatic on the cost of providing services as it is here.
Remember the bulk of broadband in the UK is DSL. So, phone service by telco pays for the majority of the lines. Internet over cable (TV) is far more restricted. The ability to get most popular channels free OTA limits cable's penetration. DBS is also very popular also limiting cable.
So, telephone provides for the cost of the wireline ... and DSL is just icing on the cake. |
|
jmckformerly 'shaded' join:2010-10-02 Ottawa, ON |
jmck
Member
2013-May-31 11:10 am
do you know how much it costs to live in the UK? rent is extremely expensive including just regular food like a pizza. |
|
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2013-May-31 11:40 am
BUt a pizza isn't regular food But the general cost of living there is certainly high, which makes broadband an even bigger deal. Mind you restaurant and take out food here in Canada is no longer cheap either! |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
vincom join:2009-03-06 Bolton, ON |
to sbrook
Re: This will never happen in Canadaso relatively speaking w/our lower cost of living we should be cheaper for internet I wonder what india/china pay for their internet, talk about density |
|
yyzlhr join:2012-09-03 Scarborough, ON |
to bgw
Also decent speeds in the UK is hard to come by and pretty expensive. When I lived in the London, I lived in a brand new flat in a high end neighbourhood. All I could get was 6mbps DSL, which was dirt cheap, or Cable internet which was more expensive than North American standards. |
|
|
to vincom
said by vincom:so relatively speaking w/our lower cost of living we should be cheaper for internet I wonder what india/china pay for their internet, talk about density India and China have a much higher pop. density. We're better off comparing to a country like Australia (see below data from Wolfram). |
|
Fraoch join:2003-08-01 Cambridge, ON |
Fraoch
Member
2013-May-31 1:51 pm
And the UK is somewhere in between India and China:
256 people per square kilometer
Incidentally that Wolfram site is cool... |
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
to bgw
You've got to be on the ground to understand how population density doesn't exactly work in some areas, and does in others. Sometimes a high population density can actually make it difficult to provide service because it requires digging up critical roadways etc. |
|
shaner Premium Member join:2000-10-04 Calgary, AB |
shaner to bgw
Premium Member
2013-May-31 2:10 pm
to bgw
What's missed in that story is the "line rental" cost that isp's charge over and above their own service fee. It looks to be somewhere around 15 pounds per month. So, that 2 pound service is really 17 pounds which works out to $27/month Canadian. Which is still a whole lot cheaper than the $40-ish/month we're having to fork out for even the most basic internet package these days. |
|
1 edit |
to mark_in_2k
Why do people always compare the density of the entire country. Compare the density of the populated areas.
3.74 people/km^2 seems very low because Canada has vast reaches of land where no one lives.
Edit: Some stats
Toronto: 945.4/km^2 Missisauga: 2439/km^2 GTA: 850/km^2 Montreal: 2,205/km^2
London: 5,206/km^2 Hong Kong: 6,480/km^2 Sidney: 2,058/km^2 |
|
|
to bgw
As well prices in the UK usually include the tax. So $27 is really ~$24+GST. |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to bgw
The £2 offers are only in a bundle, so the actual price is meaningless. It's also a "for the first 12 months" offer, not the long-term price.
The total normal price for the bundle is £20.90 per month, or about $33 CAD per month. It's 14 megabit unlimited (but probably throttled, as some of the UK ISPs do), so you'd want to compare that to cable+voip here.
With TekSavvy, that price would get you 10 meg cable with a 150GB cap and VoIP service from voip.ms. Not quite as good an offer, but not nearly as bad as the initial reactions to the misleading £2 might seem. |
|
|
to jmck
This is NOT why internet is cheaper there, stop making that argument |
|
|
So enlighten us and tell us why it is... |
|
|
to mark_in_2k
Just a note about Canada vs Australia: a lot of Canadians live near the Canada-US border. And Australia/New Zealand is separated from other landmasses by a large body of water. |
|
arahman56 |
to Guspaz
Well, it's not like Robellus doesn't do the same- advertising prices that are only true for a few months, and then goes up, and also requires to be in a contract far longer than the duration of the advertised price.
And even with the Teksavvy comparison, the plan's still pretty good compared to Canada. |
|
GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
to bgw
Sure, but the implication is that it's a substantially better service for 10% the price is misleading, really it's a decently better service for the same price. |
|
|
to BoogaBooga
said by BoogaBooga:Why do people always compare the density of the entire country. Compare the density of the populated areas.
3.74 people/km^2 seems very low because Canada has vast reaches of land where no one lives.
Edit: Some stats
Toronto: 945.4/km^2 Missisauga: 2439/km^2 GTA: 850/km^2 Montreal: 2,205/km^2
London: 5,206/km^2 Hong Kong: 6,480/km^2 Sidney: 2,058/km^2 Because many other countries have decently sized cities between their really big ones? We have wide open spaces? If you go outside of Southern Ontario and parts of Quebec, there's maybe 1 or 2 cities in each province that have more than a 250k population? I would imagine having more larger cities in a geographical areas is better than having 1 or 2. |
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
to bgw
THere's an optimum density for providing service ... All the places with densities that exceed Toronto for example, are probably actually harder to lay fibre and cables to because at a certain point, existing infrastructure gets in the way too much. |
|